Local governments in Nigeria and the latest apex court decision – Dr. Muiz Banire

Local governments are the third tier of government in Nigeria, following the federal and state governments. This much is now judicially settled after several years of controversy on the issue. They play a crucial role in grassroots development, governance, and the delivery of public services. In this conversation, I am exploring the status and role of local governments in Nigeria, examining their constitutional framework, functions, challenges, and impact on development, against the background of the latest decision of the apex Court in Nigeria technically confirming their autonomy. In order to appropriately situate the discussion, it is apt to commence with the historical antecedents of local government administration in Nigeria. The evolution of local government administration in Nigeria has been influenced by various colonial and post-colonial policies. The pre-colonial era witnessed traditional forms of governance, while the colonial period introduced more structured local administration.

The 1976 local government reform was a significant turning point, as it aimed to create a uniform system of local governance across the country. This reform recognized local governments as a distinct tier of government, with defined responsibilities and autonomy. As at date, the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as variously altered, provides the legal basis for local governments. Beyond the creation, the said Constitution divided the entire country into 774 local government areas (LGAs), each expected to be governed by an elected council. It however regrettably vests the determination of the structure in the legislature of the various States, one of the aberrations generating the controversy around the status of the local government councils. The Constitution further outlines the functions of local governments to include economic Planning and Development of their areas of operation. In this regard, the Local governments are responsible for formulating and implementing economic plans for their areas.
Local governments are saddled with the responsibility of providing primary health care services as well as environmental health management. The Local governments are also to manage primary education and adult literacy programs in their domains. In terms of infrastructure, local governments are responsible for the construction and maintenance of roads, streets, and public buildings excluding those meant for the State and federal governments. Essentially, they deal with primary linkage roads. Local governments are also to promote agricultural development and manage local natural resources. They provide social welfare services, including the care of the elderly and disabled. Thus, the primary roles of local governments is to deliver essential public services, specifically including health care, education, water supply, sanitation, and waste management, the effective delivery at that local level improves the quality of life for residents and supports sustainable development.
These basically are the constitutional functions the local governments are meant to perform. From the above, it becomes glaring that local governments ought to be instrumental in promoting grassroots development. They are the closest government to the people, addressing local needs and priorities. By implementing development projects and programs, local governments would be contributing to the overall socio-economic development of their areas. The vital role they play in rural development is crucial to poverty alleviation and improvement of the living standards of the inhabitants.
Local governments, where effective, enhances democratic governance by promoting public participation in decision-making processes by providing a platform for citizens to engage with their representatives and contribute to the formulation of policies and programs. This participatory approach fosters transparency, accountability, and responsiveness in governance. I have gone this length to enumerate the above responsibilities and benefits of the local governments where aptly and effectively operated. Historically, these duties were executed to the admiration of all but regrettably in recent times, the semblance of such execution of the functions, much less the actual, has deserted us. Although, so many challenges account for their non-performance, the obvious and biggest of which is financial. Prior, however, to delving into that, which will constitute the fulcrum of this intervention, vis-a-vis the latest apex Court’s decision on the remittances to the local governments, I will cursorily deal with the other challenges, in which some are also not unconnected with funding.
To this end, administrative inefficiencies and capacity limitations affect the performance of local governments. Many local government councils lack the necessary skills and expertise to manage their affairs efficiently. Poor record-keeping, inadequate planning, and weak institutional frameworks contribute to ineffective governance and poor service delivery. As indicated above, this is largely attributable on one hand to the poor quality of the council leadership, traceable to the corrosive recruitment process and, on the other hand, to the perception of the local governments as a dumpsites/dumping ground of not-too-well-to-do in the civil service, due to the inaction pervasive there. Closely knitted is the challenge of political interference which undermines the autonomy of local governments. State governments often exert control over local councils, influencing their decisions and operations.
This interference compromises the independence of local governments and hampers their ability to function effectively. The appointment of caretaker committees or such other nomenclature by state governors instead of elected councils is a common practice that further weakens local governance. This is telling on all aspects of the local government administration. The major plague is corruption that is a pervasive issue in local government administration. Lack of transparency and accountability mechanisms allows corrupt practices to thrive. Misappropriation of funds, embezzlement and bribery are common, leading to the misallocation of resources and poor service delivery. This is fueled largely by the encroachment, in the first instance, by the Governors on the resources of the local government. This emboldens the leadership of the councils and, by extension, the management to have their piece equally. Complimentary to this is the rendering comatose of the legislature at that level.
Added to this is the continuous hijack of the local government revenue bases by the State governments. Examples lie in the collection of tenement rates under one guise or the other by the State governments. In the same vein is the hijack of collection of advertisement rates by the State governments. In fact, in some States, even television and radio licenses are collected by the State. All these erode the revenue base of the local governments. We now return to the elephant in the room, funding challenge. Local governments in Nigeria face significant financial challenges. They rely heavily on allocations from the federal government, which ordinarily are often insufficient to meet their needs. This is besides the pilferage at the State level. Most times, they are only left with remnants that are barely sufficient to meet the personnel cost and overhead. Additionally, the mismanagement of funds and corruption further deplete their financial resources.
Limited revenue-generation capacities hinder their ability to implement development projects and deliver services effectively. In most instances, internally generated revenues end up directly in the pockets of the political stalwarts under the pretense of concessions. While not so much concerned with the internally generated revenues, our focus is basically on the statutory allocations. In this connection, there are broadly two sources of statutory allocations to the local governments.
The first of this is the ten percent share of the internally generated revenue of the State in which the local government exists. To the best of my knowledge, only Kaduna State under Governor Nasir El Rufai honored this obligation. Imagine the proportion of this that would have accrued to the local governments but denied them. This inevitably impacts on the service delivery at the local governments and constitutes serious financial deprivation to the local governments. As at date, the denial has not been challenged in court by anyone. Thus, the State governments still regale in the misappropriation of the accruable sums payable to the various local governments. Now, the major statutory source of funding the local governments is through the allocation from the federation accounts. This, ordinarily, by the constitution, is transmitted through the state governments by virtue of the constitutionally created joint state and local government accounts. The notorious fact however is that there is continuous rape on the amount due and payable to the local governments by the State Governors.
The abuse has been on for as long as my memory serves me. So many condemnations have gone on to no avail. The Governors continue to behave as headmasters over the local governments, notwithstanding several apex courts judgments condemning the iniquity. As the open robbery continued and has reached the crescendo of embarrassment, the federal government, through the Attorney General of the Federation took out a writ to abate the nefarious practice by seeking the imposition of sanction for that purpose and others. Part of the reliefs sought by way of remedy is the direct transfer of accruable funds of the local governments to their accounts. As a concomitant relief also, the Attorney General sought the seizure of funds accruable to the local governments by the federal government in cases of local governments operating without democratically elected leaders. The two prayers were answered by the apex court, implying that any local government henceforth without democratically elected leaders would not be entitled to the release of funds accruable to them. The further effect of the apex court’s decision is that the States, going forward, will not have direct access to the funds accruable to the local governments again. The rationale behind the decision is essentially to ensure that the true representatives of the people run the local governments through election and that they have access to their funds unimpaired by the state governments.
The ultimate goal is to ensure that the grassroots truly enjoy the democratic dividends they are entitled to. I must confess that I am yet to access the majority decision of the apex court but have had the privilege of reading the partially dissenting judgment of a member of the panel. I am aware that majority of legal professionals have not blessed the judgment so much, considering what they belief is judicial legislation. Interestingly, the populace has largely received the judgment with joy, considering the menacing manner in which the Governors have been pilfering the local government funds. In as much as I would not want to join the frail of the critics that have not digested the judgment, much less appreciate the import, I must say that, to the extent that comfortable majority of Nigerians favour the judgment, I believe the end of justice in the true sense has been met. In support of this position, I believe that not only do the various Justices of the Supreme Court originated from local governments, they invariably live in the domains of local governments. They do not therefore only observe what is obtainable in the local governments, they equally feel it through the absence of services. They simply are not ghosts and are not administering justice over ghosts. Law to them must remain instrument of social engineering. Since the Governors have demonstrated to be recalcitrant lots, there must be a remedy. This, the apex court has done.
Certainly, in the case of withholding the funds where no democratic structure is in place, there is certainly no prohibitive provision against same in the Constitution. Consequently, since the groundnorm is silent, the apex court is at liberty towards the attainment of the objective of the provision to introduce sanction. I therefore endorse the reasoning of Abiru, j.sc in this regard. Although there is specific provision overreached in the other instance through the direct allocation to the local governments, I share the sentiment of judicial legislation or activism in this respect but with the caveat of the circumstance of the decision. By this, I mean if the apex court acted as a court of policy (which it is), I see no reason why there should be any grudge against the decision. However, if the conclusion was reached as per the law, then there is justification for murmuring. I say no more until I read and digest the main judgment which is yet to be officially released. The point being made therefore is that the apex court needs to act more in public litigation cases as a court of policy than the law. The law must be made to shape the direction of the society to the pleasure of the majority of the citizens. However, I must not fail to register the fact that the decision has grave implications for other aspects of local governance, particularly in States with Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs) or its equivalents.
Local governments play a critical role in Nigeria’s governance and development landscape. Despite facing numerous challenges, they have the potential to drive grassroots development, enhance public participation, and deliver essential services. Strengthening financial autonomy, administrative capacity and political independence of local governments is crucial for improving their performance. By addressing corruption and promoting accountability, local governments can contribute significantly to Nigeria’s socio-economic development and the well-being of its citizens.